that was last year. it has drug on now for i think near six to seven months, and this soldier has not been promoted because the nomination to promote him that came from the armed services committee unanimously has been held up by one u.s. senator. that's senator vitter from louisiana. i understand that senator vitter is holding this nomination up all of these months because he's demanding certain things from the corps of engineers for his home state. regrettably, it represents a list of things for the most part that the corps of engineers cannot do. they don't have the legal authority to do, they don't have the funding to do, they don't have the authorization to do. and in any event, general -- the general that we're talking about here -- general walsh -- doesn't make policy for the corps on whether to do these things even if they have the authority. he executes policy. that's what the job of this general is. he's the commander, the

mississippi valley division of the corps of engineers. he spent a tour in iraq for this country. he's done a lot of work not only in a war zone, but all around this country, has a distinguished 30-year career. and yet, despite the fact that last year, i believe it was in september, he was to have been promoted to major general, this soldier's professional life is on hold because of the actions of one united states senator. i say to my colleague from louisiana, i think this is fundamentally unfair to general walsh. it is fundamentally unfair. and it is not the way we should treat soldiers. the demands that are made of the corps of engineers are demands the corps of engineers cannot meet, and the exchange of letters -- i put this exchange of letters in the "congressional record." there are two letters from my colleague, senator vitter, and two responses from the corps of engineers. make it clear that the senator

from louisiana is asking something that the corps cannot possibly do. he's made, i think, six or eight requests. i believe the corps has indicated they will proceed on two of them because they do have the authority. the others they cannot because they are not authorized, they don't have the money, and they don't have the legal capability to do it. i just think this is one of out of 100 nominations that are held up. one out of 100 that are on the executive calendar. but this one person is someone i know, a one-star general who deserves to be a two-star general. that's what senator mccain believes. that's what senator levin believes. unanimously the armed services committee reported this out last september, and this soldier's career is on hold because one u.s. senator is demanding of the corps something the corps cannot and will not be able to do. it does not have the legal authority and does not have the funding and does not have the authorization to do it. and i'm here today to make a unanimous consent again, and i

would ask of my colleague from louisiana if at last, at long, long last he might allow this nomination to proceed. this general should not be a one-star. he should have last september been a two-star general because unanimously the armed services committee believed that he was owed that and deserved that promotion in his rank. months and months and months later this general has had his career stalled by the actions of one senator. my hope is that today perhaps that senator will tell us that he will lift that hold and that we will be able to give the second star to general walsh, a patriot, a soldier, someone who served this country in wartime and has not deserved what has happened to him here in the united states senate. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr.evin: madam president, me a o the senator from louisiana. as the senator from louisiana knows, i'm chairman of the armed services committee. our committee operates on a bipartisan basis.

i see one other member of the committee who's sitting on the floor here today, and i know that he would -- in fact two other committee members are on the floor, including the presiding officer. i know they would confirm what i'm saying. we should keep our uniformed military officers out of any kind of political cross-fire. they don't make these decisions. they put on the uniform of the united states. they give their lives, their families support them. the least we can do is give them bipartisan support. we do that on this committee. this was unanimously -- this nomination was approved and put on the calendar on october 27. this is a document we call the executive calendar of the u.s. senate, printed every day. he's been -- this general has been sitting here now, major general michael j. walsh, since october 27.

the senator from louisiana has expressed himself to the corps of engineers. he's made his arguments. this general cannot do what the senator from louisiana is asking for. number one, he can't do it because the corps has told the senator they don't have the authority to do what he wants them to do in terms of these three projects. and in any event, this general does not have the authority within the corps to make these kind of decisions even if the corps had the authority to approve these projects. so, as chairman of the committee -- i know i'm speaking here not just for myself. i'm speaking for every member of the committee that has voted for this general's nomination. and i know i'm speaking for senator mccain works has told me specific -- senator mccain, who has told me specifically i can invoke his name in support of a plea of the senator from louisiana to no longer hold this

nomination. it cannot achieve what the senator from louisiana wants to achieve. it is a terrible message to the men and women in uniform that a nomination like this is obstructed because there's a request from one senator for some projects for his state which the corps cannot approve, according to the letter which the corps has sent to the senator from louisiana. so i just want to join my friend from north dakota, and on behalf of the armed armed services committee make this plea. i spoke to the senator from louisiana a number of months ago. he indicated to me that he just needed a few more weeks. he thought he could straighten this out in a few more weeks. a couple months has now passed since that conversation. i would make this plea, as chairman of the armed services committee. but i know representing the unanimous view of the armed services committee that this man should not -- this soldier, this general should not have his promotion held up for these kind

of reasons or any kind of reasons, as far as i'm concerned, but surely not a reason where he himself is personally involved. once in a while we will disagree with a nomination, including of a uniformed officer, where we have problems with that uniformed officer's activity, something that they may have done that we disapprove of. rarely, but it happens. but in this case, this is nothing to do with this officer. the objection or the effort of the senator from louisiana has got nothing to do with this officer. it's not this officer that's blocking anything that the senator from louisiana wants. and so i would join this plea that the senator from north dakota has made, and i know he's going to be making a unanimous consent request. but i will be joining in that request when he makes it. the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: madam president, i do object. general walsh today, before any promotion is one of nine leading officers of the u.s. army corps of engineers. he's part of that leadership.

i'm happy my two colleagues are satisfied with his leadership and the corps' leadership and how that agency is being run. i can tell you as a senator from louisiana, i'm absolutely not satisfied with their leadership and how that agency is being run at all. madam president, since hurricane katrina, there were 14 major report deadlines put on the corps of engineers, required of the corps of engineers. the corps missed all 14 of those major deadlines. madam president, today as we speak, the corps is still actively missing and has failed to respond to 13 of the 14, having accomplished one many months late. madam president, i have brought nine significant issues before the corps of engineers in conversations with them.

not minor projects. major issues with regard to hurricane recovery and hurricane and flood protection. i've outlined the authority that they have to do constructive things under each of those categories, and they have not responded in a positive or timely way on eight of those nine issues. one of those issues is a particularly good example, madam president. that's the morganza to the gulf hurricane protection project. that is a vital hurricane protection project that would protect significant portions of south louisiana that was originally proposed in 1992. madam president, the senators want to talk about authority from congress, that project has been authorized by congress three different times, in three different water resources bills.

and yet, the corps continues to drag its feet and is still not moving forward toward full implementation of that project after three specific authorizations by congress, 18 years later. so, madam president, i would simply say i'm sorry the corps leadership is frustrated with an 18-day delay or an 18-week delay, but i suggest they try 18 years on for size, because that's how long the people of many folks throughout louisiana have been waiting on the corps of engineers. thank you, madam president. i yield the floor. mr. dorgan: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, let me say to my colleague from louisiana -- if he would stay in the chamber. madam president, let the record note that he's left the chamber. let me say there is no state, none in this country, that has

received more help more consistently from this chamber, from the american people and, yes, from the corps of engineers in the aftermath of the hurricane katrina. that state and the city of new orleans was leveled. it was an unbelievable catastrophe for the senator's state and for his city. but i tell you what, after billions and billions and billions of dollars that's come from this congress and, yes, from my subcommittee -- the subcommittee on appropriations that i chair -- i think it would be nice just for a change to hear that maybe the corps of engineers, the united states senate and the american people have been a great help to new orleans and to louisiana. but let me just describe with what my colleague just said on the floor why this is such an unbelievable mistake for him to make. he says, just to pick an example, he says well, the

morganza to the gulf issue is a perfect exam pell of how the -- example of how the corps won't do what it's supposeed to do. on and on. let me read what the corps of engineers says. let me tell you what i know as an appropriator. the corps of engineers is not authorized to construct the huma lock -- which is what he wants in this morganza to the gulf, as a free standing project or as a separate element to the project. an additional organization will have to be required to construct the project in accordance with a new design criteria. my colleague might not like that. i understand it. there's a whole lot of things he doesn't like. i understand that. but it's the fact. and he cannot possibly go to sleep believing that holding up the promotion of a soldier that's gone to war for this country, because of something that soldier can't do that he demands be done, he cannot

possibly sleep easy believing that's the right course of action. it is not the right course of action in this country. this is but one of 100 names on the executive calendar to date. 100. and this was put on the calendar nearly six months ago for a general who has an unblemished record, has served america for 30 years, gone to war for this country, and was told by the armed services committee, republicans and democrats unanimously, by senator levin and senator mccain, you deserve a promotion to the second star as a major general. but six months later this is not a major general. this soldier has lost his promotion for the last six months because of one senator saying "i'm going to use this soldier as a pawn in my concerns and demands about the corps of engineers." i could go through the rest of these demands. let me go through a couple if i might. out fall canals and pump to the

river, he's making demands about that. let me tell you about that. we had a vote on this, and he lost. and he doesn't like it. so the appropriations committee, the full committee voted, and he lost. why did he lose? because what he wants to do is the most costly approach that will provide less flood protection for new orleans. so you want to spend more money for less protection? the appropriations committee voted on that. i led the opposition. the appropriations committee voted no. he's demanding holding up, by the way, the promotion for this major general. he's demanding that it be done. the corps of engineers says if congress appropriates the funds for this study, we'll do it. but there are no funds appropriated. why? because we voted against it; that's why. unbelievable. and the list goes on. ocho river levies. the authorization for this project specifies the levee maintenance is a nonfederal

responsibility. contract has not enacted a general provision in the law that would supplant this responsibility or that would allow the corps to correct levee damages not associated with flood events. that's just two. i mentioned three. the fact is we have a circumstance here where a soldier deserves a promotion, and that promotion is being held up because we have a senator that's demanding things the corps of engineers can't do. that's unbelievable to me. i don't come here very often and get very angry about what a colleague does. everybody has their own desk. everyone comes here with their own election and own support. but i am saying, these demands and using a soldier's position as a pawn and demanding things that the corps can't do is fundamentally wrong. i don't know how someone can sleep doing it. madam president, i -- i've not yet made -- i have not yet made

the consent request. the presiding officer: would the senator yield for a question? mr. dorgan: i'd be happy to yield. i do intend to make a unanimous consent request. i have not previously made it. i would alert the folks here that i will be doing it. i would be happy to yield. mrs. mccaskill: senator, it's my understanding, through the chair, that there are dozens and dozens of these holds that are secret, that nobody knows what demands are being made or why. we don't know. now, in this instance, it's my understanding that this senator has proclaimed publicly why he's holding. is that -- is my understanding correct about that, senator? mr. dorgan: that's correct. i think perhaps boasting about it. he's saying, i have to do this for my state. but there's nothing he can gain for his state because the corps of engineers cannot move on these issues, they don't have the authority or legal capability. and the fact the soldier's whose

promotion he is holding up is wafting in the wind for six months. mrs. mccaskill: that's the part i really want to inquire about. if -- let's just say hypothetically, if the army corps of engineers succumbed to what the senator is asking and said, okay, you're going to hold up this brave's soldier promotion that he deserves because you want something for your state, if they did , that wouldn't that be illegal? mr. dorgan: absolutely. mrs. mccaskill: so what he is asking is he's asking the army corps of engineers to do something that is illegal and if they refuse to do something that's illegal, he's going to refew to a -- refuse to allow a soldier's promotion to go through? am i actually getting that right? mr. dorgan: i believe you have it pretty close to right. as i understand, it the senator is demanding the corps of engineers to do something they don't have the legal authority

to do. and until they do, he's going to hold up the promotion of general walsh. it is unbelievable that someone would do that. a senator: let me -- if the senator would yield. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: the march 19 letter from the corps. the senator from louisiana said that the example he wanted to use was something called the morganza project. that's the example. he said, let me give you one example. three times he's said the project's been authorized. this is what the corps said relative to morganza. the corps does not have the authority -- this is in writing, a letter to senator vitter, does not have the authority to implement whom the navigation lock, section 425 of wrda, 1996 authorized a study of an independent lock but did not authorize construction. section 425 reads in part, secretary shall conduct a study

of the environmental flood control and navigation impacts associated with the construction of a lock structure in the huma navigational canal as an independent feature of the overall damage prevention study conducted under the morganza, louisiana, to the gulf of mexico feasibility study. close quote. the corps conducted a study in response to section 425, but that study did not recommend the construction of an independent huma navigational lock feature due to uncertainties of benefits and concern over justification of an independent lock structure. that's their answer. they don't have the authority to do it. and i -- i -- again, i know the senator from missouri is on the committee. so she understands that we act in a bipartisan way. we try to protect and defend and support the uniformed members of the united states military. we've had -- we have unlimited

bipartisan support for what they do for us. and this is the response? the hold on a nomination because the corps will not do something that they are not authorized to do? i -- i think it's -- it's so unacceptable, i made this unanimous consent request about two months ago. the senator from louisiana objected then. said give them a few more weeks, he thinks he can work it out those few weeks have long gone. so i very much support the effort of the senator from north dakota here. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: madam president, i mean, it's unbelievable to me that we have 100 of these. this is one that i'm particularly concerned about because i think it misuses a soldier's promotion in pursuit of something that really can't be done by an agency. and, you know, i regret this is happening. this should not happen. how on earth are we going to find ways to work together in this place if this is the way we do business? i mean, this makes no sense to

me. it's not fair to a soldier. you know, people listening to this would understand somebody demanding an agency to do something that it can't do in exchange for releasing heeled on a soldier's promotion? i mean is that what we've come to here? i who hope not. so my intention is to offer a unanimous consent request. my understanding -- mr. levin: if the senator would yield. the presiding officer: the senator from michigan. mr. levin: the senator from delaware has a unanimous consent request which has been cleared. i wonder to make sure that the senator from louisiana does have notice and apparently he's been notified that there's going to be a unanimous consent request. mr. dorgan: i'd be happy to have the senator from delaware do his request. i would say, however, the senator from louisiana was on the floor, and i would hope would stay on the floor in order to object to something that deals with -- with the holdup that he's made on this nomination, but apparently he's

left the floor. so let me yield to the senator from delaware for his unanimous consent request and then i will propound a unanimous consent request on the subject as discussed. mr. kaufman: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from delaware. mr. kaufman: madam president, i ask unanimous consent on wednesday, the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar 699, the nomination of christopher schroeder, there will be three hours with respect to the nomination, that upon the use of the yielding back the time, the senate proceed to the vote on confirmation of the nomination. upon confirmation, the the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, further the cloture motion with respect to the nomination be withdrawn provide that the schroeder nomination, the 578 to be u.s. circuit court judge for the their circuit, there will be three hours of debate with respect to the nomination, upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote on the confirmation of the nomination, upon confirms, the motion to

reconsider be laid on the table, and the cloture motion with with respect to the nomination be withdrawn, provided further on thursday ape 22, following a period of morning business the senate proceed to executive calendar number 607, the nomination of denny chin to be u.s. circuit judge, there be 60 minutes for debate, upon the use or yielding back of time the senate proceed to vote on the confirms of the nomination, upon confirms, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table laid upon the table, with a cloture motion with drawnd the president be immediately notified of the senate's action with respect to the nominations with all time covered on this agreement equally divided and control between senators leahy and sessions or their designees and finally the senate resume legislativing as. the presiding officer: is there objection? without objection. under the previous order the cloture motions on the schroeder, vanaskie and chin nominations are withdrawn. mr. kaufman: i yield to the senator from north dakota. the presiding officer: the senator from north dakota. mr. dorgan: i ask unanimous

consent that the senate proceed to calendar 526, the nomination of brigadier general michael walsh, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, that any statements related to the nomination appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. that the president be immediately notified of the senate's action. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. vitter: madam president? the presiding officer: the senator from louisiana. mr. vitter: yes, madam president, for the reasons i clearly laid out, i, again, object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mr. dorgan: madam president, let me, again, say the reasons that were laid out were inappropriate reasons. that the very specific project that my colleague described as the problem, as least one of the problems, it turns out he would know, because he received in written notice from the corps of engineers, they don't have the legal authority to do that which he demands. so i don't know. i don't know where you go from here. if facts don't matter in this

place, then, i guess, we have a fact-free debate and one does what they want to do without regard to the consequences. the consequences in this case, the negative consequences is for a soldier, a patriot who has gone to war for this country and is now in my judgment being treated unbelievably unfairly at least by one senator. madam president, i yield the floor. the presiding officer: the senator from new jersey. a senator: thank you, madam president. today i rise because today is 11 years since the massacre at calendacolumbine high school in littleton, colorado, occurred. mr. lautenberg: madam president, before i continue, i must ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to a period of morning business with speakers permitted to speak for up to 10

minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lautenberg: thank you, madam president. this -- this was -- is a painful recall of a horrible moment in our country that should remind us all of a condition that could easily happen again. i and millions of other americans watched in horror as young students hung out of windows in that schoolhouse to try and save their lives while two of their school mates went on a rampage and killed 12 students and a teacher. those images will forever be burned in our memory. but here's what a lot of people don't know. all the firemen, all the firearms are used by the shooters were bought by an

underaged friend at a gun show. that purchase was made because of the gun show loophole -- was able to be made because of the gun show loophole. they were bought with no questions asked. not a background check. not a question about who you were or where you might live. the weapons were bought cash and carry without, again, any identifying questions being asked or being supplied. those 13 people should never have died that day because those teenagers should not have had access to those guns. the young woman who bought the guns for the shooters said she wouldn't have done it, she said, without if a background check had been required. our laws require a background check for all gun sales by licensed dealers. but a special exemption allows

anyone, including terrorists like bin laden, criminals, gun traffickers, and the severely mentally ill to buy guns without a background check from so-called private sellers who sell hundreds of guns every year at gun shows fully exempt from any responsibility for those sales. in 1999, introduced legislation to close this gun show loophole and to keep guns from falling into the wrong hands. in the aftermath of columbine, the senate passed my legislation with vice president al gore casting the tiebreaking vote. it was a great victory, but a short-lived one. the gun lobby stripped my legislation in conference with the house and in the decade since then, we have done absolutely nothing that the

national -- at the national level to close the gun show loophole. no wonder domestic terrorists frequently use gun shows to sell their firearms to fund their illegal activities. just yesterday we commemorated the 15th anniversary of the oklahoma city bombing. it claimed 168 lives, including 19 children under the age of 6 -- some under the age of 6. timothy mcveigh, the killer responsible for those horrific deeds, effectually set -- frequently setup his own booth. he sold weapons at the gun shows. and we continue to see the tragic consequences of senseless gun violence fueled by gun show dealers who aren't really licensed. just a few weeks ago, a few

miles from this chamber, john patrick bedell, opened fire on two police officers at the pentagon metro stations. they were wounded before they returned the fire and killed bedell. one of his semiautomatic guns was linked directly back to a gun show sale, and it's no surprise that his gun was bought outside the normal stream of commerce because bedell would have failed a background check. he actually tried to buy a gun from a licensed firearms dealer in california, but because of his diagnosed mental illness, he couldn't pass the check. now, if that doesn't make it clear that we have got to stop guns from falling into the wrong hands, just think of the virginia tech shootings. last friday, we marked the third anniversary of that horrible day. in that tragedy, a mentally

deranged man killed 32 students and faculty in the worst mass shooting in american history. now, whether it's virginia tech, the recent shootings at the pentagon or columbine, we're reminded over and over again that our gun laws are not strong enough, yet while gunshots continue to ring out across this country, the silence from this chamber is deafening. i'm a veteran. i served in the military in europe during wartime, world war ii, and i understand the desire to protect one's oneself and family, but i know how important it is to keep terrorists, convicted criminals and domestic abusers from having guns. now, some would argue that gun owners are against sensible gun laws, including closing the gun show loophole, but that's simply not true. recent polling has shown that

there is overwhelming support for closing the gun show loophole among gun owners, and that here we have a placard that shows that gun owners themselves want the loophole closed. 69% of n.r.a. members agree. 85% of other gun owners agree. shut down that gun show loophole. republican pollster frank luntz recently found that 69% of n.r.a. -- national rifle association members -- and i point out 85% of others -- want us, join us to close this loophole. after all, the vast majority of gun owners are law-abiding americans who passed background checks and use their firearms responsibly. they know their lives and the lives of their children are in danger when a firearm is

purchased by an unqualified buyer at a gun show, by someone who could never pass a background check at a neighborhood gun store. madam president, it's as easy as ever for criminals to buy guns. easier, in fact, than it is to get a library card. we have an opportunity to save lives, and that's why i call on my colleagues to please join me and pass my bill to close the gun show lop hole once and for all. 11 years ago, we lost 12 students and a teacher to gun violence in littleton, colorado. one of the best ways to honor those who perished and those who have suffered is to make sure a tragedy like columbine never happens again. we owe that and nothing else to the young people who died 11 years ago, and the young people who count on us today.

we have got to step up to our responsibilities and ask all gun dealers to step up to their responsibilities. withha i yield the floor.

the presiding officer: the senator from missouri. mrs. mccaskill: madam president, earlier today, i came to the floor to talk about transparency and the bright sunshine of

public service and how foundational to that service being open is. it is really impossible to do the people's business if we do not allow the people to see what we're doing. i remember sound and fury coming from some of my friends on the other side of the aisle when they believed that there were decisions being made about the health care bill behind closed doors. sound and fury that somehow someone wasn't telling the public everything that's going on. meanwhile, dozens and dozens and dozens of nominees to do the work of our government have piled up under the heading of a secret hold. now, i don't really understand

how the secret hold came about. i don't really understand why you would ever need a hold to be secret. why does it need to be a secret? is there something going on that you're not proud of? is there a problem that you don't want people to find out about? i mean, i've got to tell you, i -- i kind of admire the senator from louisiana who boldly spoke out that he is holding a general and not allowing this general to get another star after a unanimous vote of the armed services committee because he wants a special project for his state that hasn't been authorized and hasn't been appropriated. bold. not unheard of, unfortunately. around here, people are constantly making deals for pork. pork is an important part of the deal making around this place. way too much of it goes on behind closed doors. but at least the senator from

louisiana -- and i think earlier the senator from alabama, at least they were willing to publicly say that they are holding a nominee because they wanted some pork for their state. what i am most worried about is how many people out there are holding these nominees for secret reasons and there are secret negotiations going on about what they want to get in order to release the hold? that's what is really -- everyone should be uncomfortable with. and because we were uncomfortable with it, the senate passed a law. we passed a law that was signed into law by president bush. and this bill was passed by 90- something to four, i think. in that bill, section 512, it lays out what we thought was going to be an end to the secret hold, and in the bill, it says that once someone makes a

unanimous consent motion for a nomination to proceed, then that is the gun -- the starting gun. the clock begins ticking, and in that law, it says when the motion is made, then the member of the senate who has a secret hold must notify their party leader of the reasons why the nomination is being held. and further, that that hold must be published and the reasons for it in the congressional record within six days. well, this morning, i began the process of making that clock tick so that secret holds come out in the open where we can all identify them. now, keep in mind that all of the names i am trying to begin the clock ticking on the secret hold, all of these names came out of committee without an

objection. in fact, we even went so far as to go back in the record and see if there was a voice vote, and even if there was a voice vote against the nominee, we didn't include them in this list. so these literally are people who have been nominateed to do important things in our government -- put criminals in jail, sit on the bench, move prisoners around the country, an ambassador to a country that is incredibly important to the stability of the middle east in our national security. all of these people have not had anyone speaking out in opposition to them, but yet they're held in secret. so it is important that we begin this process so that senators can proudly explain what exactly -- i think there are many examples probably of what the senator from louisiana was trying to do.

the man he is holding has nothing to do with the project he wants. the man he is holding can't even deliver the project he wants. he is just telling that agency you're not going to get what i want -- excuse me. he is just telling that agency you're not going to get what you want until i get what i want. i've got to tell you, that is not the way the american people want this place run, and while the vast, vast majority of these are secret holds by our friends across the aisle, there is also a handful that are being held by democrats, and that is just as wrong. this is a bipartisan issue. it's about good government, transparency, and doing the people's business in public instead of in secret. i want to clarify a point made earlier today in an exchange i had with the senator from arizona. the senator asked why i did not include column 208 on sullivan, a member of the f.c.c. on my list. as i stated earlier, my list consists of those nominees who

have secret holds. it is my understanding the senator from wisconsin, the democratic senator from wisconsin, has raised his objection to mr. sullivan publicly and put out a public statement on his opposition to mr. sullivan on june 30, 2009. so -- and if any of these names that i'm going to proceed to try to get unanimous consent on, if any member has, in fact, put out a public statement on their opposition, then obviously they just need to speak up. that's what we're looking for here. we're looking for people to speak up and own their objection. there's nothing wrong withholding a nominee if you have got an objection. there is something wrong if it's secret. there is nothing wrong with debating a nominee. there is if it's secret. there is nothing wrong with voting no on a nominee. that's public. it's the secrecy that we have got to get at here. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive

session to consider calendar number 652, the nomination of michael mundaca, the assistant treasury of the -- secretary of the treasury, the nomination be confirmed, the motions to consider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appear at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: madam president, reserving the right to object, and i will simply make a couple of comments at this point because as my colleague has said, it is her intention to make further unanimous consent requests, and much of what i say will relate to them as well, so with her indulgence, let me just make a custom points here. i don't know whether there are, in fact, holds on all of the individuals for whom there will be a unanimous consent request made or whether in some cases there was just a failure to

clear on a -- what we call around here a hot line, that is to say a request made by the clerks on both the republican and democratic side. i don't know who has holds on these individuals. if there are, i haven't looked it up. there are some, clearly, who are not objectionable who are on the executive calendar. i think, for example, of -- there is a group of u.s. marshals. as far as i know, there will be no objection on our side. those are simply to be worked out in terms of when the votes will occur between the two leaders, and there is a process near to occur. we just voted for a judge in which that was done. i understand there's an agreement now for a department of justice assistant secretary or counsel, rather, who will be voted on tomorrow and two judges, i think they're both circuit court judges, which has been worked out by the majority

leader and minority leader. so i would only say that if th the -- if my colleague from missouri does intend to ask unanimous consent requests that each of the individuals that she names be approved by unanimous consent, then i will have to object to that because i think it's more appropriate for our leaders to determine a time for debate, if there needs to be any debate, and then a vote, if there needs to be a vote. and, therefore, short of that, i would have to object to the unanimous consent requests. therefore, with respect to the specific request just made, respectfully i would object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: madam president, the -- when someone fails to clear someone, they're holding them and they have the right to do that.

this is not a debate over whether people have the right to hold, and i can assure the gentleman from arizona, the leader is very aware that these motions are being made. these motions are being made simply for the purpose to allow the rule to operate the way we wrote it -- the law. we have a bad habit around here. the bad habit is, is you can whisper in somebody's ear and hold a nomination. that's what we -- that's why we put these provisions in the law, to stop that bad habit of somebody being able to whisper in somebody's ear and say, "well, you know, if you give me that believe, i'll let that guy go," or "if you give me that levee, i'll let that guy go," or "if you give me that, i'll let that guy go." this is to fix having to stop a nomination without having to say why or even who. so this is only an attempt.

this is not to say that all of these nominees -- i'm not naive. i know all these nominees aren't going to move through the chamber this afternoon by unanimous consent. but what it is, is notice. this is notice. this is notice to the american people that we're going to try to begin to enforce the law we wrote. now, i've been -- it's been pointed out to me, well, you didn't put enforcement mechanism in there. what, do we have to make it a misdemeanor for a senator to claim a hold? do we have to say you can go to jail if you don't identify your hold? you would think that senators passing by a margin and signed by a republican president of 90-some to something, that that alone would be enough that people would, in fact, i would hope that the people i named this morning, that the people who are holding them have already notified the senator from arizona or the senator from kentucky that they are, in fact, the ones holding these nominations and why. this is the only person of this

exercise, is to make the law work that we voted for, that i'm confident the senator from arizona voted for, and that the leader from kentucky voted for and that the entire republican leadership voted for. mr. kyl: madam president, would my colleague yield just for a quick comment? the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl kyl: and i appreciate my colleague's comments, many of which i consider well taken. it is my practice, if i have a hold on someone, it is for a very specific purpose i consider to be legitimate and i'll notify whoever may be in -- involved in it. when i talked about the -- clearing the so-called hot-line, what i meant by that was this. sometimes either a piece of legislation or a nominee will be hot-lined, usually in the evening after all business has expired and most of us have gone home. i have on occasion, because my staff will then be informed of that, and sometimes they will respond to that hot-line by saying, senator kyl does not

approve that have bill or that nominee because i know nothing about it. and the next morning, we will take a look at it and nine times out of ten, you say okay, no problem, let it go. technically, that could be deemed a hold i think under the legislation that we referred to. but i don't think any of us really are -- are getting to that objection. and then about one time out of ten, there's usually something that you say i don't like x in this bill and then frequently that gets cleared up. so sometimes the practice of hot-lining i think can -- can be a good practice but it does mean that everybody needs to take a look at what's being hot-lined and have an opportunity to either register an objection, get it worked out or else maybe the objection would stand. but to the point of my colleague about the so-called secret holds, i totally agree. and i was just noting the fact that there are different reasons why some of the people might be on the calendar that my colleague is reading. i don't know what those reasons r. i need to object tonight --

reasons are. i need to object tonight on behalf of the minority and i will do that. and to the extent that they are secret and are being used for some of the purposes that my colleague described, i agree that those are improper and that that does happen around here. and as she said, by both sides. mrs. mccaskill: and i appreciate my friend from arizona and his comments. i understand that he is not someone who's making secret holds and he's objecting on behalf of others and that there is not a problem with that. i -- i do want to make the point that under the law, it's technically not a hold until this unanimous consent motion is made. so there is no obligation under the law for someone to identify their hold until this unanimous consent motion is made. now, i would think that after these motions are made, that everyone will be on notice to follow the law and stop with the secret hold business because it's going to slow us down to have to constantly come to the floor and make these unanimous consent motions. wouldn't it just make more sense

for everybody to own it? wouldn't it make more sense if you're going to stop somebody's life and a lot of these people have given up their other jobs and they're just out there in limbo, wouldn't it make more sense just to own it and not go through these games? keep in find at this time in the bush administration, we had five backed up. we've got 80-some backed up, none of which had objections in committee. none of which had objections in committee. so, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 705, james p. lynch, the director of bureau of justice statistics, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's actio actions, and that any statements regarding the nominee appearing at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: madam president, i object. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to -- the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar

number 722, the nomination of judith anne stewart stock, the assistant secretary of state, that the nomination be confirmed, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, to further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appearing at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 726, the nomination of patricia a. hoffman, assistant secretary of energy, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be modally notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appearing at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: madam president, i object. the presiding officer: the objection is heard. mrs. mccaskill: mr. president -- madam president, i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to executive session to consider

calendar number 728, the nomination of gloria m. navarro, united states district judge for the district of nevada, the motion to reconsider is laid upon the table, no further motions be in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action, and that any statements relating to the nominee appearing at the appropriate place in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: madam president, reserving the right to object. i might just inquire of my colleague, i -- i appreciate indicate -- the presiding officer: the senator from arizona. mr. kyl: thank you, madam president. i appreciate that i gather there will be individual unanimous consent requests made here for the purpose of getting on the record the objection as to each item, each name on the calendar. i believe that we could accomplish that purpose by a -- an en bloc request, if my colleague were to make such a request, that it would be deemed that the request was made for each of the individual names -- perhaps my colleague would read or numbers on the calendar referred to, if i then interpose

an objection, my colleague's purpose of beginning the clock, as it were, or requiring the person with the hold on the individual having to come forward would be achieved and i would be happy to spare the -- the time of my colleague and the senate in going through each individual name. i can just object en bloc and that process can then commence. it if that would be acceptable to my colleague. mrs. mccaskill: well, pardon me while i consider the irony that the leader -- one of the leaders of the other party wants to save time. i find that slightly ironic under the circumstances of how many of these nominations have been blocked up all these months. having said that, it's my understanding that this law requires the motion to be made on each individual. and i don't want there to be any question that each individual motion has been made so everyone understands the clock is ticki ticking. i think it's very important that

that is a very clear signal. i don't believe this procedure has ever been undertaken before under this new law that we passed in january of 2007, and i want to make sure that after the fact -- because i'm worried that perhaps someone's going to think if we didn't make the motion, they can tag team and withdraw their secret hold and put another secret hold in. i'm trying to make sure that that doesn't happen. mr. kyl: madam president, i appreciate that concern and i would think that by a unanimous consent agreement which specifically stated the reason for it, as boat of us have described it here, that it would be our intention that the process of s. 1 would then be invoked as a result of an en banc request and an en banc objection, especially if the chair would rule on the matter that perhaps that would be sufficient to move forward on and we could know at that point that the process had -- had been invoked for everybody. madam president, might i inquire, if we were to do that,

whether the chair would consider the process to be invoked for all of the names considered in the senator's request. the presiding officer: an en bloc unanimous request will satisfy the procedural requirements. mr. kyl: so i would be happy to have the senator phrase it in whatever way she would prefer and then for me to object appropriately for that purpose. mrs. mccaskill: i will be happy, in the spirit of moving things along and getting cooperation to move things along, which i hope is something that becomes a trend, i'll be happy to read off all the names and then make the motion en bloc and -- en banc and allow one objection to be heard for the record and then we hopefully will get letters flowing into the offices tomorrow of all the members that fleissig, united

states district of judge for the eastern district of missouri. calendar number 731, lucy haeran koh, u.s. district judge for the northern district of california. calendar 732, tanya walton pratt, u.s. district judge for the southern district of indiana. calendar 740, marilyn brown, member of the board of directors, the tennessee valley authority. calendar 741, will cram b. sansom, member of the board of directors, tennessee valley authority. calendar 742, neil mcbride, member of the board of directors, tennessee valley authority. calendar 743, barbara short haskew, member of the board of directors, tennessee valley authority. calendar 759, jane magnus-citizenson, united states district judge for the southern district of indiana. calendar 775, brian anthony

jackson, united states district judge for the middle district of louisiana. calendar 776, elizabeth erny foote, united states district judge for the western district of louisiana. calendar 777, mark a. goldsmith, united states district judge for the eastern district of michigan. calendar 778, marc treadwell, united states district judge for the middle district of georgia. calendar 779, josephine staton tucker, united states district judge for the central district of california. calendar 780, william nettles, united states attorney for the district of southern california. calendar 781, wilfr de tocqueville o ferrer, united states attorney for the southern district of florida. calendar 782, michael peter huerta, deputy administrator of the federal aviation administration. calendar 783, david matsuda, maritime administration. calendar 784, michael tillman, member, marine mammal

commission. calendar 785, daryl bonness, mammal commission reappointment. calendar 787, earl weener, member national transportaion safety board. calendar 788, jeffrey moreland, director, amtrak board of directors. calendar 789, larry robinson, assistant secretary for oceans and atmosphere, department of commerce. calendar 790, vice admiral robert papp to be commandant of the united states coast guard and to the grade of admiral. calendar 791, rear admiral sally vice o'harrah. calendar number 792, manson k. brown to be commander, pacific area of the united states coast guard and to the grade of vice admiral. calendar 793, rear admiral robert c. parker to be commander, atlantic area of the united states coast guard and to

the grade of vice admiral. calendar 794, arthur allen elkins, inspector general, environmental protection agency. calendar 795, david capp for the northern descrirkt of indiana. calendar 796, anne thorc thompk, united states attorney for the wernts descrirkt of north carolina. calendar 797, kelly mcdade nesbit. calendar 798, peter christopher munoz, united states marshal for the western district of michigan. calendar 799, carolyn hessle r radelet. calendar 800, elizabeth littlefield, president of the overseas private investment corporation. calendar 801, lana pollack, commission on the part of united states on the international joint commission, united states and canada. calendar 802, victor ashe, member, broadcasting board of

governors. calendar 803, susan mccue, broadcasting member of board of governors. calendar 807, dennis mulh awvment pt. calendar 808, s. enders wimbush, calendar 809, calendar to the republic of niger. calendar 810, raul yzaguirre. calendar 811, theodore s. dgwick, ambassador to the slovak republic. calendar 812, robert stef ford, ambassador to the syrian republic. ambassador 814, gary scott fe. nerman. calendar 851, sharon johnson

coleman, united states district judge nuclear the north district of illinois. calendar 816, ambassador rett at that lynch, u.s. attorney for the eastern district of new york. calendar 817, knoll culver march, united states marshal for the district of maine. calendar 818, george white united states marshal for the southern district of mississippi. and calendar 819, brian todd underwood, united states marshal for the district of idaho. i would like, madam president, unanimous consent that the following names proceed to executive session the calendar numbers as read that those nominations be considered, the motions to reconsider be laid on the table, no further motions in order, the president be immediately notified of the senate's action and that any statements relate to the nominees appear in the record as if read. the presiding officer: is there objection? mr. kyl: for the reasons indicated, i object. the presiding officer: objection is heard.

ms. mccaskill: madam president, just finishing up here, hopefully we never have to do this again. hopefully we've turned the page on a new day and secret holds will go away. if anyone -- i know that -- let me just once again give kudos to senator wyden and senator grassley. they worked on this for years. trying to clean umsecret holds and thought they got it done when they passed senate bill 1 back in 2007 and like a bad habit that is hard to break, this one evidently has been very hard to break in the numbers that i just went through. those are all the people that have secret holds right now. and hopefully by the end of the week we'll learn who it is in the senate that doesn't want them to be nominated, who it is that doesn't want them to be confirmed, and that they are willing to speak out about their objections so that we can answer them and move forward and get these people to work. for the people of this great country. thank you, madam president. the presiding officer: the senator from illinois.

mr. burris: thank you, madam president. i would like permission to speak as if in morning business. speak as if in morning business. the presiding officer: without objection. the senate is in morning business. mr. burris: thank you, mr. president. last week i came before this body to speak of the loss of a great leader from memphis tennessee by the name of benjamin hooks. madam president, it is with heavy heart that i come to this floor of the senate again for the loss of a distinguished american. early this morning our nation lost a strong leader, a great civil rights pioneer. i would ask my colleagues to join me for a moment in reflecting upon the leadership, passion, and selfless dedication that defined the highly consequential life of ms. dorothy height.

she began her career in the 1930's as a teacher in brooklyn, new york. she became active in the united christian youth movement shortly after it was formed. it was this cause that would first carry her to national leadership, though she was quite a young lady at the time. in 1938, dorothy was selected by the first lady eleanor roosevelt to help plan a rural youth conference. she rose to this task with poise and determination and made a strong impression on the first lady. later dorothy was asked to serve as a delegate to the world conference on life and work of the churches. also in 1938 she was hired by the ywca and quickly began to rise through the ranks of the national organization. it was around this time that she

caught the attention of mary mccloud mcthune, founder and president of the national council of negro women. or ncnw. who recruited young ambassador knee to join the fight for women's rights, one of the central issues that would become the cause of her life. she remained deeply involved in the ywca and also obtained high leadership positions in delta sigma theta sorority, the united civil rights leadership and a number of other organizations. she helped to guide these pivotal groups through the stormy waters of the civil rights movement, looking always to the future and maintaining a steadfast dedication to cause and principle p. but it was dorothy's distinguished leadership of the ncnw that would come to define

her career. in 1957, dorothy height was elected the fourth national president of the ncnw, a position she would hold continue usually until 1998. for more than four decades, she was at the helm of the preeminent leadership council for african-american women. thanks to her unrivaled expertise, vision, and lifelong dedication to this cause and to this great organization, at the time of her retirement in 1998, she lived in a country that would far more free, more fair, and more equal than the one she saw as a child. for her extraordinary work, in 2004, this congress bestowed upon her its highest civilian honor: the congressional gold medal.

president bush presented her with this award on her 92nd birthday. today, mada mr. president, as we celebrate dorothy's life and mourn her loss, i ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring the immeasurable contributions she has made to this country. i ask them to reflect upon the leadership she has rendered and the causes she has championed and the countless lives she has touched. without dorothy height, america might be a very different place today. we owe a great deal for the difference she has made and for the lifetime of hard work she has devoted to her fellow citizens. so with a sad heart, mr. president, i come before this body to eulogize one of our pioneers, one of our greatest americans, one of the major contributors to the civil rights movement to advance the cause of

equality and justice in the united states of america. with that, mr. president, i yield thelo and suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:

quorum call:

mr. brown: i asunanimous consent to dispense with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, for too long the interests of the middle class have gone ignored, simply an afterthought in a financial system that helped a few americans help themselves to accumulate immense wealth while middle-class wages stagnate. whenever i go in ohio, the story is the same from toledo, to marietta, from ashtabula to middle town. entrepreneurs and small business owners can't get the credit they need to expand operations and hire workers. college students are worried about signing away their financial future when signing up for college. they're worried a bank's

exorbitant interest rates will follow them into adulthood. neighbors in ohio have been shattered because of the housing crisis caused in large part by wall street gambling with the american dream. cities and towns face massive budget shortfalls, shortchanging vital public services like education, law enforcement and transportation. today i brought to washington for the third straight year 55 presidents of colleges and universities twaorbgs-year, four-year, private and public in ohio, to talk about what we do with public education. all of them face significant budget problems because of this -- because of what wall street has done to our communities, to our colleges, to our universities, to our cities, to our towns, to our small businesses. workers worry about their pensions, whether they spend their later years living off the fruits of their labor or working part-time jobs gist to get by

-fl -- jobs just to get by. the hallmarks of middle-class life, a safe home, a safe community, in too many places are at risk. let's not forget what got us here in the first place. some might say we don't need to pick winners in our economy, but we don't need to pick losers either. yet, look what we've done on wall street and washington. washington's permissive attitude towards wall street has thrown our entire economic system into turmoil. the financial sector can't be allowed to call the shots as they have when it comes to our economy. let me give you one quick statistic. in 1980, 35% of our nation's g.d.p. was manufacturing. less than half that amount, less than one-sixth was financial services. today those numbers have flipped. manufacturing, at least before this recession, manufacturing accounted for only about 15% of our g.d.p. financial services was almost twice that. look what that brought us,

mr. president. look what it brings us in mining towns in colorado or industrial towns in ohio, where town after town after town has been hollowed out because of wall street, because of policies that federal policies from the last decade that have chosen financial services over manufacturing, that have chosen wall street over main street. mega banks can't hold such a large stake in our economy that their downfall becomes our economy's downfall. despite the economic meltdown, despite millions of dollars in bailouts, our nation remains vulnerable to the next economic crisis. yet what's happening? this institution? people are trying to block us from action. the biggest the banks grow bigger. the six largest u.s. banks have total assets equal to 63% of our overall g.d.p. say that again. sixth largest banks have total assets equal to 63% of overall

g.d.p. whowe must take action to ensuro bank has such control of our nation's wealth that if it fails our financial system crumbles. what kind of a choice, what kind of a hobson's choice is that for the house and the senate and the president and the federal reserve to make when a bank is so big that if it is about to fail we have two choices: either we bail out that bank with taxpayer dollars, as we had to do a couple of years ago with the end of the bush years, or we allow the financial system to implode and crumble. but size alone isn't the problem. we also have to cut back on wall street's risky and speculative activity where taxpayers' interests are involved. for decades we had a system that incense reckless behavior without accountability and with little consequence to the bank thaers get us into it. all the while taxpayers and the middle class are left footing the bill. that's why wall street reform is

so important. it would make big wall street banks accountable. it would impose strict regulation to prevent wall street from gambling with our financial security. think what happened the last ten years. the last ten years the banks got bigger, the speculation grew more rampant. the risk from very, very, very highly paid wall street bankers and managers and executives, the risks became more rampant. and when everything fell, the middle class and poor people in this country paid the price. they paid it through lost jobs. they paid it through lost homes. they paid it through more debt. they paid it through losing the american dream. in the end, if we do the wall street reform right, if we are able to overcome the opposition to wall street reform, the opposition that's all about protecting the banks from the republican leader and those who

follow him, if we do -- if we do wall street reform right and win this debate and outvote the republican leader and the banks and all who would follow him, it would make wall street banks accountable, it would impose strict regulation to prevent wall street from gambling. it would end taxpayer bailouts for good. financial institutions, not american taxpayers, would then pay for their own mistakes. if someone starts a small business in o'leary, ohio and fails, he pays for it. if someone has a job and fails at her job, loses her job, she pays for it. when wall street banks fail at their work, they collect. in many cases they collect millions and suffer little punishment while the rest of us pay for it. this provides -- if we do this right, wall street reform will provide the strongest consumer protections for people in ohio and colorado and every state in this country. no more of the tricks and the traps and the mortgages and

elsewhere that led to the collapse of the economy. we need bring new accountability to wall street that protects pensions of retirees and jobs of our workers. those opposing financial reform, those that oppose wall street reform as they did with health care reform are protecting special interests. mr. president, you were on this floor many times the presiding officer, the senior senator from colorado were on this floor many times during the health care debate. over and over we pointed out how the opponents to health care reform, similar to the opponents of wall street reform, were in too many cases simply representing the interest groups that were opposed to this, the republicans most important benefactor during the health care reform were the insurance companies. and those insurance companies were major, major supporters for decades of republicans. well, we're seeing the same thing with wall street. the most important benefactor to the republicans on wall street reform are the big banks and the big wall street operators.

and again, they're doing the bidding of the banks. they're doing the bidding of the wall street operators. they make other arguments. they never say the reason i'm opposed to this bill is because wall street and the big banks want me to. they always come up with something else. there's an old saying from a mississippi civil rides leader said don't tell me what you believe. show me what you do and i'll tell you what you believe. watch what republicans in this institution are saying. in the end, they know this choice is between wall street and main street. behind closed doors, they of course want to make the decision for wall street. but when they come out here, they want to make it look like while they're protecting wall street, they want to make it sound like they're protecting main street. americans are too smart to be fooled. wall street lobbyists have enlisted republicans to help them kill a bill they have had. they have had meeting after meeting behind closed doors with wall street lobbyists, with bank lobbyists talking with them about how to kill this bill. you've heard them say directly, you know that the republican leader and those who follow,

those republicans that follow him are saying directly to wall street lobbyists they want their help, they're going to elect more republicans to the senate. that would help immensely. because if there were more republicans in the senate they'll have more people to block wall street reform. so while cutting back room deals to prevent reform, they're hoping the american people forget it was wall street greed, it was deregulation of wall street. so they had no real rules to live under the last ten years and it was greed and excess that put this country on the brink of collapse. no more meltdowns. we need rules to ensure wall street investors can't bet the farm in chillicothe thaoerbgs can't bet the job in wilmington. we need rules that protect entrepreneurs, not rules that protect wall street in new york. and that's what reform will do. it's about protecting small business owners like theresa

from powell, ohio, and central ohio who writes my husband and i own a small business in ohio. our business is successful. we want to grow. we want to hire more employees. but the banks still aren't lending. we have a new product we'd like to launch but we need a loan. we put everything in the business to make it a success. how is a business to grow if it cannot get financing even if it has a proven track record of success? it's about joann from cincinnati who writes i'm one of those small business owners who can't get money from the banks. if the situation continues, my family and i and my employees and their families will be out of luck and out of an income and into unemployment. the banks are sitting on cash. they're cleaning up their balance sheets. they're killing us with their fees. mr. president, some republicans claim the banks are more important than protecting the american public. it's a false choice. the real choice comes this week and next week as this wall street reform comes to the senate floor. the real choice is are you going to side with wall street?

are you going to side with main street? that's the choice f. we in this body follow the republican leader and side with wall street, we'll be in another financial collapse sometime in the next decade or so. if we, however, in this body follow the presiding officer and me and others who think that main street is what represents the real values of this country, we'll see a financial system mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent to dispense

with the quorum call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 492 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 492, honoring the life and achievements of dorothy i. height. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, the resolution be agreed to, program program, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table, and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record at the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 493 submitted earlier toy. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 493, designating april 23 through 25, 20 10rbgs as global youth service days. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceed together measure? without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent, mr. president, the resolution be agreed to,

preamble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, that the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of s. res. 494 itted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: s. res. 494, honoring idab. wells for activism in the civil rights and women's rights movements and for her influential and inspirational leadership. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. brown: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to prea amble be agreed to, the motion to reconsider be laid on the table with no intervening acts or debate and any statements related to the resolution be placed in the record in the appropriate place as if read. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that the appointment at the desk appear separately in the or as if made by the prayer. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today adjourn at 9:30 a.m., wednesday, follow the morning bear, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for

the two leaders be reserve for use later in the day, there be a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak up to 10 minutes each with the majority controlling the first 30 minutes and the republicans controlling the final 30 minutes, following morning business the senate proceed to executive session to consider the nomination of christopher schroeder to be assistant attorney. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. brown: there will be up to three hours of debate prior to the vote of the confirmation of the schroeder nomination. if there is -- and if there is no further business to come before the senate, i ask that it adjourned under the previous order. the presiding ofce the senate stands in adjournment

case. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. isakson: i thank the leader, and i rise at a propitious time for what i'm to say because both the majority leader and the my in ordemy -- minority leader boh addressed the pending legislation in terms of the financial bill that's coming out of the banking committee and also the desire by both of them for the bill to be one that is amendable and debatable on the floor. because i'm here today to talk specific about just one facet of the financial crisis and just one improvement that is to be made by this bill that needs to be carefully addressed to make sure that we don't make or repeat a mistake that was made in the 1990's at the failure of the s&l industry. i have a chart, mr. president -- or, madam president, i'd like to refer to for a moment. we've heard a lot about mortgages, and we all know right now if it wasn't for f.h.a., if

it wasn't for v.a. insurance, it it wasn't for v.a. insurance, it and one for the fed by the fannie and freddie there wouldn't be much mortgage money available in the united states right now. they run away from the united states because the supreme crisis and in fact because people are nervous about what happened in the financial markets for some prime security. but during this crisis we've been in between beginning in 2005 to 2006 and the line on until now in my state of georgia these numbers are specific the georgia is the tenth largest state in the united states. you see the mortgages and redefault and totally in default or in foreclosure 42% for what i refer to as qualified mortgages. those are mortgages made to credit with the people that have good and underwriting standards those were good mortgages. 8.2 per cent or one in ten of those was either delinquent or pending for closure.

but 27 -- 24.7% are what is known as subprime mortgages on qualified loans either in mortgage delinquency or in default. 3-1. the reason i shall this is it demonstrates where the problem happened not just on wall street but on main street and that is in chasing high year yield and pushing towards the desire for greater homeownership credit standards, wones became nonqualified loans that carry a higher rate or interest rate, but much higher risk and it's acknowledged by me and i think by most in terms of the housing crisis we have been on the largest precipitating factor was in fact shoddy underwriting, loose credit and subprime mortgages. now the legislation coming out of the banking committee is going to create something known as shared risk, lender liability in terms of the making of mortgage loans. i would be the first to tell you

i'm not on the banking committee. i haven't seen the final address. but i want to help the committee will understand and its requirements for sherburn is being the leader of a mortgage retain 5% of that mortgage for its lifetime until it's paid is a significant amount of capital that asked for an institution to reserve and possible amount i might add for a mortgage broker or mortgage banker but not for an institutional lender. the problem is there are no institutional lenders like the loans anymore. one should revisit what happened with the savings and loan crisis, the resolution trust corporation and failure that took place in the late 80's and 90's. in america in the 1970's and 80's most of the mortgages made were made by lenders who didn't share the risk. they had 100% of the risk. there were saving loan associations that deposits, paid a preferential rate of interest over banks like regulatory designed to attract capital, and

they have the mortgage in portfolio until it was paid, that's not shared risk, that's total risk. overall for closure rates in the 1970's and the 1980's up until the end of the 1980's. marginal. one, two, 2.8%, certainly not eight, certainly not 24.7. what happened though in the savings of the loan industry is the federal government took away the interest preference between banks said the capitol flowed out of the snl weigel it was number one. number two because the snl is in it to make more money on internal portfolios, we allowed the government allowed savings and loans corporations for subsidiaries that deviate from their original charter and instead of just making home loans allowed them to make commercial loans and in fact become developers. what happened is history. because we got off of the mission because we got off the risk, because we took our eye off the ball the savings-and-loan industry across

america failed. congress had to appropriate the resolution trust corporation to dispose of the bad assets of around the country and we went through up until now the most severe recession we have ever been through. but this one is worse. this one is more pervasive. this one was called by a lot of financial certain the irregularities and poor oversight on our part as well as agreed on the part of many lenders. my hope is when we start fixing things with regard to mortgages we will recognize shared risk is not going to solve any problem if 100% risk to itself in the late 1980's. what will solve the problem is to have reasonable standards of required underwriting that are an insulator from institutions making bad loans unless they take the risk. i am suggesting that we define what is a qualified loan that would not be subject to a shared risk and what is a loan that would be subject. for example what would a qualified mortgage be?

i was in this business for a long time when i started in the business in the 1960's through the mid 80's you could borrow twice of your annual income, you couldn't have a monthly payment higher than 25% of take-home pay and your total debt couldn't exceed 33% of your gross income. that was reasonable underwriting. the foreclosure rates then were two, 1.5, high of 2.8 in the mid-1980s but certainly not anything like we've had in the 24.7 and 8.2. what is a qualified loan is one that requires full documentation so you do have to have a job so your boss verifies your jobs of the -- de e-verify your credit so you have a down payment, you don't have a down payment assistance or a now you see it now you don't program. no interest on loans. everybody knows you are not making investment if you are not reducing the principal of interest only loans were a bad idea that the time it came and went. it may be good for certain forms of commercial and investment but

not for residential. no balloon payments. one of the biggest problems with foreclosures were good people were loaned money with shoddy underwriting that had a balloon payment in three, five or seven years. they felt a balloon was something that blew in the air. it's the whole principle comes do all at once and you're subject to the ability to refinance. that isn't a qualified loan that is a high risk change. no negative amortization. now that was a bad idea whose time came and had to leave. negative amortization and he borrowed 100,000 but paid payments amortize less than 100 thousands to the koza you paid more not less. that was wrong and predicated on rapid inflation our appreciation which isn't always going to happen. and then requiring people to carry private mortgages insurance on their one of the exceed 80% of the loan value of the house to read normal underwriting standards until we got into the lucey goosy times of the late 1990's and the

decade of 2010. those -- if we adopted in this legislation those parameters to exempt the lender from the shared participation we would have tracked the money towards qualified loans underwritten like we did in the good old days. and then take the shared risk retention on the loans that are not well underwritten. make the mortgage broker or investment banker on wall street pulled 5% of the investment they sell because it didn't meet the qualifications. what would happen? they wouldn't do it because they went all the money. it would have prevented what was alleged, one of the brokerage houses to already. they would never short something and failed if the had a piece of it. there would only do it if they had a piece of it and you didn't. i think it's important when we get into this entire suggestion or regulation or deregulation of the industry but we also recognize we have some obligations to correct some of the mistakes the government made itself in the past. it caused the problem in the s&l in the 80's and with mortgages

qualified mortgages in the 1990's. what i'm suggesting very simply is this, let's take those things that are tried and true, not things we think will work but things we know will work. let's make him the gold standard. let's make them the qualification for the attraction of money into the market just found the homes of the american people. and let's say to those who wanted to give risky loan, let's say to those who want to have shot the underwriting instead of those who want to make a quick return and get out before the dollar comes to they have to take the risk. shared responsibility or shared risk is precisely right as an insurance policy to protect against that. but the unintended consequence of shared risk on a qualified well underwritten loan is a higher interest rate for the consumer and is the attraction of capital for the individuals to form of those loans had housing purchase which ultimately leads the government to do with fannie and freddie -- what they did before, forced to make loans it shouldn't, force the government and taxpayer to

be at risk in those loans and bring us back to another period like the s&l collapse or later like the financial market collapse of the late last couple of years there will be another when the future we don't recognize the need to make qualified loans well underwritten, built like we did in the good old days when america flourished the foreclosure rates were low and home ownership and housing was in reach of 70% of the american people madam president, on any yield the floor. >> senator from new hampshire. >> madame president i want to rise to talk about the same issue the senator from georgia discussed at first i want to congratulate the senator and this is the point we've been making on our side of the altar. he's come up with a thoughtful and appropriately to address what was one of the drivers of our fiscal meltdown in this country. if you look at what caused the financial crisis of late 2008 which caused significant recession and has cost the it cost us to go through expenditures as a government and

the american people do have to suffer the consequences of this recession, we are three or four major that generated this. one was money was too cheap for too long. the federal reserve decision. but right at the essence of it was the issue of underwriting, the fact that there was a decoupling of the people making the loans from the people responsible for the loan. and you have this whole service industry built up that was making money off of the of originating loans and they were not that concerned about the ability of the person to repay the loan or the underlying asset. what the senator from georgia has pointed out and supposedly passed for what is a very responsible way to address the fundamental problem which we have which is the failure of underwriting and that is the point we've been making on our side of the aisle. we have a whole series of what we think are pretty good ideas as to how you can make financial reform work better.

now i was impressed and certainly one of them is the idea for the senator from georgia. i was impressed to hear both of the leaders say they want to have a bill that is bipartisan that's comprehensive and thoughtful and as versus the issues which we confront in this regulatory arena. unfortunately that is not the atmosphere that's been created. regrettably there's been a huge amount of hyperbole especially in the last couple of weeks most of it hasn't been part of moving inside it half of his thoughtful and mature and substantive approach to this issue. most have been addressed at raising anecdotal even touch than have been hyperbolized and to single one-liners as to how you address at. this issue of financial reform is far too complicated for that is just the fact. it is an extremely complex undertaking to make sure we

accomplish what we need to accomplish and regulatory reform. our goal should be first we should do whatever we can to restructure the regulatory arena so that we have reduced the greatest extent possible the potential of another system at risk even. i will talk about what we need to do in that area in a second. second, while we are doing that we have to make sure that the regulatory environment that we put in place keeps america has the best place in the world to create capital and get a loan for people willing to go out, to give riske, the entrepreneur is and create jobs. one of the great uniqueness of our culture, what makes us different from other places in this world, what makes us such a vibrant energy as an economic engine as we have people willing to go out and take risks, people willing to be entrepreneurs and we have a system of formation and credit which makes capital and credit available to those

individuals. at reasonable prices and so as we go down this road of regulatory reorganization we've got to make sure we don't suffocate the great strength of the nation. so there are four basic issues before us today. and in the issue of regulatory reform and none of them are partisan yet the atmosphere think they are all part is an especially the president's recent speech which was really over the top in the partisan dialogue. the first is how to and to big to fail. now we cannot allow a system to exist where there is a belief out there in the markets that the taxpayers are going to back up a company that has taken too many risks and has gotten itself in trouble. why is that? because if that happens, if there is a belief in the market the taxpayers will step in and back up companies that are very large and systemic when they've

taken too much risk and created and put themselves in dire economic straits, there is a reason they will step up and say capital will get promoted, capital will not be efficiently used, capital will flow in an inefficient way to the companies which have proven themselves to not be fiscally responsible. and that is not a good way for the economy to function. in certain market economy to function. as we have to and too big to fail. now this isn't a partisan debate. senator dodd brought forward a bill he thinks would tend to be to fail. in my view it doesn't. it has serious flaws. it is a good attempt but it doesn't get there. senator corker and senator warner, two parties come to different parties, have put together a concept we call the resolution party around here, which actually does and to detail and does it the right way. it is essentially says if a

company -- if it gets out of whack it over extends itself and too much risk, no longer viable, well we are going to resolve that company to stop, bondholders will be wiped out and the company will basically fled into bankruptcy and will not be concerned. we will not be concerned. so that is a good approach and it's a bipartisan approach. another edition of how you address regulatory oversight to try to anticipate the systemic event. again the christoff bill makes this attempt in the ways we could improve it. we need to have all of the different regulators who are an important role sitting in detail most likely lead by the fed who take a look at the brough rise in what is happening in the marketplace and say okay we have a problem arising. to many people doing too many things which are at the margin of responsibility here. we are part of the agency responsible for that, the fdic

for the occ or other will get free agencies to go out and make sure that activity ceases or is elevated and they are going to come back and report so that you've got oversight pure. that is the concept and can be flushed out in better terms and it goes to this issue which is raised by the senator from georgia which is we should have better underwriting standards as a part of this exercise so that in the marketplace the realistic especially residential real-estate we get back to the approach we should have taken to begin with which is that we know that the asset value is being lent to exist and the person can pay the loan back as the loan is adjusted over the years. third, the issue of derivatives. derivatives are a huge part of the market. massive. the numbers are $600 trillion of notional value, something like

that. just massive numbers. what do they do? they basically make it possible for american companies especially to sell their products around the world or to take and put their products into the markets in a way that they are able to address issues they don't have control over. for example, if you are caterpillar equipment and selling something in china, you don't know if the currency is going to change. well, you do in china. if you're selling something in brazil you don't know if the currency's value is going to change or if there is going to be a change in the cost of your materials that you were building that tractor with. you don't know a lot of different factors you don't have control over so derivatives allow you to ensure. that is a simple statement of what derivatives do that there's all sorts of different activities from a financial entities all the way across-the-board of producers of goods. and so their needs to be a regime put in place that makes these strata that gives sound

where we don't get a aig situation. where it amounts to an insurance policy with a company with a name that actually no assets. and so myself and senator jack reid from rhode island have been working for months, literally months on a daily basis to try to work out such a regime and we think we are pretty close. we think it is going to be a proposal. nobody likes it which means it is a good proposal but we need to get more transparency, get more liquidity and margin in the market and it will be in the upper to need to have end users exempt but it will also be a primary incentive to put people on a clearinghouse to the extent to commit from a clearing house to exchange that will happen also without undermining the market. but the keys to put in place a regime doesn't and force companies to overseas to derivatives activity. this is a very fluid event. if we come forward with an

overly aggressive approach your, and overly bureaucratic approach, one which basically response to the hyperbole of the element which is all derivatives are bad and not transparent therefore must be put on exchanges is something like that we are basically going to push offshore vast amount of driven of activity that is critical to the industry in america being competitive and really as a practical matter for can develop a sound market we want to and we can develop a sound market. we want to be the nation where most people go to develop their derivatives because it is a big industry and something we should keep on shore. third issue is consumer protection. my time is up. estimate the senator has used ten minutes. >> i see the senator from louisiana wants to speak. but the point here is pretty obvious. this is not a partisan issue. we can resolve the issue of financial regulatory reform if we sit down and do it in a way and step back, the mature and take the approach that is

thoughtful and drafting hyperbole and in a moment and i certainly hope we will take t process and go forward. i yield the floor. >> mr. president, i want to spend a few minutes if i made this afternoon to talk about the issue that has been the subject of must become much debate and discussion the last several days and that is the financial reform bill that will be coming to the floor of this body in a matter of days. an issue that is as the circumstances presently exist members helping to make a choice and my hope is before that occurs we can reach some understanding here that will always have a strong bill that in this to be to fail and protect consumers. the bills in the kind of architecture from financial services that allow us to avoid

the pitfalls and because the economy to reach their collapse over the next several years. so the choice will come down to sort of like this mr. president people can vote to open this debate on financial reform legislation that will hold wall street firms, large financial institutions accountable and prevent future economic crisis like the one which we are just beginning to emerge or basically defeat this somehow walk out of this chamber and leave us basically where we have been and that is highly vulnerable to read individuals, families, businesses and the overall economy of the country once again exposed to the kind of vulnerability that brought so much hardship to the country. or of course they can block as they are asked to do and some consideration of this bill and leave us in a place, a broken

place with a status quo which would create the kind of problems i've described. so one has to ask was of the question who benefits this bill to rein in wall street and large financial institutions as strangled by a filibuster. we cannot get to the bill. who benefits from that? no one can make a case to the american family with benefit. these families have seen millions of jobs lost control in some savings wiped out because the greedy few on wall street gambled with money that didn't even belong to them causing hardship that we've seen in the nation. certainly not the american small-business they don't benefit these are the ones who seem the flow of credit and capital literally dried up. while many of us in the chamber back in the respective states talk to small businesses that cannot get a diamond worth of credit over the last several

years. they hire these people to survive during the economic crisis, anecdote after anecdote after anecdote of business is desperately trying to find credit in order to stay alive and survive. jet because of the injector risk-taking by financial firms that caused this economic crisis credit virtually has gone. american businesses, small businesses particularly certainly not benefit if we are confronted again with a status quo and perpetuation of the present senate rules. certainly mr. president of the american community banks they don't benefit at all. they found it difficult or even impossible to compete on a playing field so heavily towards the largest firm and frankly financial firm that bore on regulated. one of the things our community banks and others and i am not suggesting they love every dotted all i in the bill but one of the things they are seeking

here is some consolidation of regulation. they want to see their competitors be subjected to so they don't face the same set of rules. the bill that i've written along with my colleagues on the banking committee and others does just that. we consolidate the regulation because it is of the overlapping jurisdictions the fixes and the major competitors of mom bank financial the institutions are going to be subjected to the same rules that they are. that creates a level playing field that follow banks for them to compete effectively. mr. president certainly not the american taxpayer if they are not going to benefit from a status quo either. they force bail out wall street in 2008 and if this bill was blocked might be asked to do it again. i'm not a prediction mr. president but at some future

congress does to the american public as we did in the fall of 2008 and asked them to read a chicken for $700 billion because we feel to get this through the explicit guarantee that the federal government will tell you about if you are so large or interconnected you can't possibly fail the american people in my view would reject overwhelmingly the request to ask them to write another check for that purpose and our bill for the first time through the legislation an absolute prohibition for the american taxpayer would ever or should ever again be asked to do what they were in the fall of 2008. mr. president here is the benefit of this bill was blocked. the same large financial firm that got us into the mess in the first place. they believe and i presume they are right thing to bolster the bottom line to the status quo

prevails if they can continue to take outrageous risks using other people's money knowing that any profit is theirs to keep and any loss would be made up by the american tax payer they are the ones, that is why we are faced with the prediction that 41 of our fellow colleagues here will vote against this bill on what they call the motion to proceed to the bill. the letter from the minority leader that says we have 41 votes here to stop you from debating this bill. when you explain that to the american taxpayer to the small business, to the american family and others out there taking an awful price because of the mess that these institutions today leading the charge against us getting to the bill, explain to them why the status quo is in their interest and their benefit. mr. president those who vote to block this bill will be sending

a clear message to american families, businesses, community bankers and taxpayers and that message will be i am sorry but we are not on your side. we are choosing another side of this equation. last month my good friend the minority leader and republican senator responsible for the campaign fund raising participated in a beating in new york with wall street executives and to have the right to sit down and start talking with people represent labor and business. we should do that but nobody knows when you come back again with our present colleague who chairs the campaign committee comes back right afterwards and of a sudden we get this rhetoric about too big to fail we can't possibly go to this bill. i was born at night, mr. president, but not last night, born at night but not last night. don't tell me that miraculously these things happen and all of a

sudden we find ourselves once again 41 colleagues many of whom i suspect are not overly enthusiastic about this game plan that says don't ask why, don't tell us what is in the bill just tell us we are going to line up and say no matter what anyone says or done or tells you to do we are going to object even been to this bill. i firmly believe there is more than a small minority of republican colleagues who frankly find that argument objectionable and that is not to suggest they like this bill or agree with every position i know them well enough to know they are sick and tired of being told how you have to vote on a procedural motion on a matter that i think is deserving of the support of our colleagues to begin that important debate. what we do know of course about the opposition to go forward is the republican leadership

returned very false talking points. talking points written by a political strategist to the large financial institutions, talking plans that have been debunked by the independent media analyst and even republicans like german sheila bair and let me point out the men of that suggested this game plan written by the political strategist was written long before even one word was written on the bill. they were told how to fight the bill that didn't exist out here by accusing the bill of leaving open the too big to fail even though they knew those who read the bill that those provisions had been written so tight no one could possibly argue too big to fail would ever be allowed again under the bill that we've written and the republican leadership return policy that every member of their caucus vote to kill this bill.

before the debate even began. madam president, i know for a fact members of this body on both sides of the ogle want to pass a good bill. my colleagues here know me well and know my reputation over the years. i have never, ever passed a major piece of legislation in this body over three decades i haven't had the cooperation of backing a member on the other side of the ogle never once on every piece of legislation have been involved in and here we are in the ranks of going forward with the largest reform and financial services sector of the country and we are divided. i hear a couple of teenagers instead of sitting around and coming together as i offered for months to get behind a bill and allow us to go forward. it's long overdue we grow up and recognize this isn't some athletic contest. this is about whether or not the

economy can get back on its feet and whether we can grow and prosper and create jobs, have credit flow and capital reforms of the businesses and wealth can be created. nothing less than that is at stake and this debate and discussion and all the more reason why we need to go forward and to go forward like members of the greatest to the board of body we are told over and over again in the history of mankind the united states senate. to resolve these matters i44 hours of my colleagues and alabama as you know, senator shall become to the point he said and i commend him for and appreciate three much we are 80% of the way to a bipartisan consensus in fact i suspect that mr. shall be asked today that number was 80% i suspect even higher number. imagine being between 80 to 90% in agreement yet we are told by the minority we can't go forward don't you write the whole bill? is that when we go forward?

80 or 90% you think is a good bill but no we are going to stop any further debate. in all my years i've never heard of such an argument with the rise in the minority or the majority did i agree with 80 or 90% of what you have written, senator, but i'm sorry. we have to stop even considering any further debate on the floor of the united states samet. i worked many hours with a senator from tennessee, bob corker, to get to 100% as he well knows. matter what was said in the meetings between the republican leadership and wall street executives the fact is the bill i will be bringing to the floor reflects normally a bipartisan in but what good common sense as well. and if you look at the foot the bill actually does it is clear there is no ideology here, just one principle. told wall street and large financial institutions accountable so that american families and businesses can grow and provide without fear of

another economic catastrophe. the bill, madam president, creates an early warning system so that for the very first time in the nation's history someone will be in charge of monitoring our entire financial system to look out from the emerging products and practices and problems not just here at home but even globally. and again i don't think that you'd have to have a ph.d. in economics to know that we read in the headlines and heard on a new show a few weeks ago there were major economic problems in the small nation of greece that all of a sudden the financial system of every other nation on the world was at risk. that small exchange in shanghai china to decline by 12% of years ago every other chains around the globe within hours would adversely affected. that market, the exchange madame president represented less than 5% of the volume of the new york stock exchange and yet because this declined by 12% one morning

every other exchanges around the world reacted. what more 20 to say about whether or not the issues here are global in scope not just domestic? again even further reason why we need to be able to pull together and create this bill that is essential. as we have a warning system in place it will monitor the financial system as i said look for products, practices and problems that emerged in other parts of the world if they can pose the kind of risk would bring the financial system to the near collapse. under the status quo of course no regulator can see beyond the narrow silo of their own radar screen and the change that. this now involves all of these provincial regulators sitting at a systemic risk council headed by the federal reserve and the treasury so they can look over the horizon and act as a financial system. what's going on out there? are there problems emerging in products and companies or

nations that could bring the country to the near disaster? if we have that in place a few years ago i would argue we might not find ourselves where we are today. so this is one of the provisions in the bill. what a pity it would be not to lose the opportunity to create that kind of a early-warning system. that's how this up prime leading sector lending sector rather was able to grow so large white the dangers and post to the economy and no one was able to stop it before it precipitated the crisis. madam president, i don't believe members of the minority caucus want regulators on the lee of emerging threats to the financial system. the bill brings new transparency and accountability as well the financial dealings by ensuring the even the most complicated or obscure transactions were completed in an open marketplace providing officer of course is well versed and talented coming from the empire state

understands these issues. we happen to believe -- i believe that derivatives are jury important for economic growth and prosperity. they have become a pachauri unfortunately. but my view is that the markets work. how do the markets work best? markets work best when there is transparency. when the buyers and sellers, investors have an opportunity to see with clarity with these instruments are, what they are designed to do. right now we have a shadow economy where some of the instrument of trade in the darkness and that is one of the problems that create the financial mess that we are in. our bill opens up and sheds light, bring sunshine to these instruments said that the taxpayers but more importantly investors and others can honestly understand what they are, what they are intended to do and how they can possibly work. for the first time here madame

president we would force the financial companies like there stearns, lehman brothers that has operated in the shadow banking system to be subject to proper supervision again so we have the ability to understand what they are doing. of course under the status quo these dangerous johnson have been free to take enormous gambles in a single-minded quest for maximum profits and when they go down like the hindenburg taxpayers are left to clean up the rubble. madam president, i don't believe the members of the minority caucus really want to lead that leaves lehman brothers on supervised until its collapse shapes the very foundation of our economy. this bill i have before us beets at the fcc oversight, strengthens protection for investors and gives shareholders a great voice how executives are compensated and how big their bonuses can get. under the status quo of course,

the same executives who mismanaged and caused the collapse of the financial giants get to collect ridiculous bonuses again. kill the bill, there's nothing in sure the would preclude the same kind of abuses of the outrageous and gouging if you will that taxpayers spent by a handful of these executives who fail to understand with the understand even more outrageously were willing to reward themselves for their own failures because the american taxpayers shored up their financial institutions. and alan stanford and bernie madoff of the world are able to rip off investors while the understaffed and underfunded fcc securities exchange commission field to stop. madam president i don't believe members of the minority caucus the republican caucus. they're free to line their pockets with unarmed billions and leave investors vulnerable

to wall street creditors and commerce. that is what went on the bill. our bill stopped we need to be about to go forward with this bill. our bill requires full disclosure and planning which madame president so that americans can easily understand the risk and returns of any financial products other is a market for student loan. and our bill creates an independent consumer protection agency. a watchdog with bark and bite to protect consumers from the abuse of practices that have become standard operating procedures sky rocketing credit card interest rates, the explosion in the checking accounts, predatory lending by mortgage firms and so much more. you don't have to educate the american people. you will hear it over and over again from constituents. listen to what they've been through with increased interest rates, increased every gimmick you can think of to pick a pocket of the american taxpayer

who today miscellaneous to depend on credit cards in order to make ends meet in their families. of course under the status quo madame president, consumers try to make decisions about their family finances are confronted with a sea of fine print, technical jargon and affordable to the predatory lenders and greedy predators that are taking advantage of them. our bill stops that. our bill puts an end to that and if we don't get the chance to debate this and go forward that will be the end of it. what a disgrace it would be to be confronted as we were at the outset of this congress with the problems of the american taxpayers have contributed 8.5 million jobs lost, 7 million homes in foreclosure with time out graded, small business is failing and failing to stop it. despite that 80 or 90% of what is written in this bill is agreed by many in the minority but you won't even allow the will to go for to be debated for

the life of me i don't understand that logic. in short madame president this bill protects the american consumer, american businesses, community banks as i mentioned taxpayers from the very exact situation that occurred in 2008. economic crisis brought about by wall street high jinks, large financial the institutions and regulatory failures. and our bill creates a stronger foundation i might add on which we can rebuild the prosperity that we have lost in the nation over the last number of years. madam president, i don't believe that members of the republican minority and friends and colleagues here want to kill this bill. i don't want to believe that. unlike others we've debated over the congress, this matter ought to be one where we can come together as i have tried to do the in and day out, we in and week out, month in and month out to crafty piece of legislation that would reflect the myriad view is embraced by the members

of the senate and we are on the brink of going forward and i will go forward with this bill. we can do with one of several different ways. we can go forward and i will bring this bill up. the leader i am told will offer a motion to proceed. my hope is we will have to have a vote on that. there will be enough common sense that will say this is a good product. even for those who don't like various provisions and then do what it's supposed to do. the bank's offer amendments, try to improve the bill based on your own view of what constitutes improvement but let's act like the united states senate on a major bill of this import at instead of putting on the brakes don't show up, don't say anything just vote no. we are not going to debate this until you do exactly as the one you to do. madam president that is not the senate that i think the american people expect to see work. my hope is we'll be right on that and my colleagues and if my

work closely with on many issues do not want to be part of a blind list or rather a blind pointless effort here just to walk away from this process. i believe they believe, mr. president, our friends on the other side are caught between the same common sense principles that led many of them to spend seven hours helping to create this legislation and political deals that have led the leadership to demand health. i've been in the body for some 30 years. i served with many republican colleagues for a long time. i have got great friends as my colleagues know on the other side of this file. people who i believe care as much about this country as any other member does and that want to be part of solutions. they didn't come here and fight hard to get here just to say no. they came here because they wanted to be part of the answer. now we can get our country

moving again and again i am charged as the chairman of the committee to try and pull together a bill that reflects the distant points of view that listens to the fellow colleagues here crafting a piece of legislation that can work. i've tried to do that now for many months and i've come to the point we need to go forward now in this body and i'm confident again if my colleagues will give us a chance we can achieve the results as they seek and i am hopeful that they will and the motion to precede a curse and then engage in the kind of fossil intelligent debate that the senate has a reputation of achieving and accomplishing. so madame president i thank my colleagues for the work they've contributed to so far. let us not take all of that work and bash it on the rocks of procedural filibuster's here. we can do better than that. i am confident that we will and i urge my colleagues to be supportive of these efforts. with that on a yield the floor and not the absence of a quorum.

the senate voted 78 period 19 to the treasury undersecretary for international affairs. date mcconnell congressional correspondent steny hoyer announced a change regarding the d.c. delegate voting rights. what happened? >> it was a staggering blow for the d.c. voting rights backers and most unexpected move. steny hoyer thought he had the vote to go ahead and have later this week the ability to bring this bill up to the floor. the bill would in effect in time congressional delegate eleanor holmes norton a full role in the house that is to say to people

to vote on the house floor she would have to stand for reelection to get there but this bill would have pushed that forward. well, he came in to a briefing earlier today in greek, highly dismayed and made very clear he was not happy about the fact people who are against the voting rights had used things like a gun control issues, how the bill would be treated in the state of utah, a number of side issues an effort to bring it down and in his view denied the district residents of washington, d.c. as he put it the capitol of the greatest country in the free world the only country words capital residents can't vote in congress. this pacifically you said you thought he had the vote. why the abrupt change? what you realize how did he realize he didn't have the votes? >> all we can figure out as he had promises, he had a loosely iraqi of conclusion the people who were not happy about gun rights whether they were before them or against them but were willing to accept them in the

bill that he had an agreement somewhere along the line of enough of them that they would swallow their differences and vote for hollen rules in effect for the city. voting rights for the city. the late ed and i think that he made a point of this at his briefing for reporters that the utah senator, orrin hatch, at the last had been a supporter of this bill but at the last was suddenly making noise about the manner in which the new utah house of representatives would be chosen. hatch insisted it ought to be in eight specific district to the original proponents said no, it should be at large because it is a new seat. i know we are getting into inside baseball that is how these things are done so because this dispute with hatch, that we have been the thing that really untangled everything. >> back to the gun issue condon writes language, it isn't a new thing for this debate over the d.c. voting rights. >> note id is not. and those who are for the ability of the city to restrict the rights held out against this

particular bill because they didn't want an amendment that will send that ability. however they're seemed to be some evidence that at least enough of them were willing to give in to get a bill passed against them you have people who do think that done lights should be restricted in the district of columbia that its laws were too liberal and that you have to have that kind of fitting in the bill and of course those people were not really a problem, it was the other side. but what ever happened, the ability of a lawyer to get enough people somewhere along the line went south. what did we don't know, why she did as far as he did we don't know, assuming she had the votes still remains something of a mystery. but when it came time for a deal and for action it wasn't there and steny hoyer had to admit he didn't have the votes and had to go back on the bill. >> any chance for this coming up later in the session? >> he said today himself he

didn't think it would be likely would be reviewed to would come back that he didn't think it would come back this session. seabeck dave mcconnell covers capitol hill for wtop radio. thanks for joining us. >> my pleasure to read some of defense secretary robert gates says the u.s. will soon begin updating its export control system. to better keep sensitive technology out of the hands of terrorists and other adversaries. sicced rebates made the remark of this event hosted by the business executives for national security. sprick good afternoon. i am the president and ceo of an organization called business executives for national security for a very patriotic businessmen and women who do everything they can to try to bring best business practice to the work of the department of defense and homeland security when asked. when we are asked we do the work at no cost to the government.

we are honored this afternoon to welcome secretary of defense robert gates to become a topic that we as well as he had supported as far back as the early 90's at eating and reforming the the i united states export control system. last august president obama announced his intention to pursue export control reform initiative. because of the last few decades many businesses have struggled with complexity of the current system many in the industry welcome this announcement. while some of us for called failed attempts to control the process one important factor is different this time. the secretary himself has emerged as one of the most enthusiastic voices calling for fundamental reform of this important system. some of you will be pleased to learn secretary gates incde

predictable export control system. when finally focused on controlling those two critical items and technologies that fundamentally ensure the forces continue to maintain their technological edge over any likely adversary. secretary gates is keenly aware of the importance of export control to the national security as well as first how the u.s. might not be controlling the most critical technologies or conversely that we may be controlling too much. second how the current controls may cooperate with partners and allies more difficult and last how the system may not be supporting the defense industry and asset upon which national-security fundamentally depends. with that the liberal the secret rebates to discuss the administration's plan for reforming the export control system. [applause]

>> sprick thank you for that kind introduction. i also would like to thank mccaul the undersecretary of state tauscher to read your efforts over the last few years saved the lives and limbs of countless men and women in uniform. my thanks as well to business executives for national security for hosting this event in areas like accounting, procurement, privatization and access based structure we identify problems and proposed solutions that have saved the taxpayers billions of dollars and made our military more effective fighting force. as many of you know for the better part of three years now i've spoken out at various times about the need to at bat and

reform america's national security apparatus to deal with the realities of the post cold war world. some of those misses or ships include enhancing america's civil and instruments of national power above all the policy and development and better integrating them with our military. rebalancing the defense establishment to reflect the lessons learned and capabilities and from recent conflicts is specially counter insurgency, stability and reconstruction operations. most recently reforming the way we build the capacity of allies and partners to better fight alongside us and secure their own territory. all of these institutional shifts are to 1 degree or another aimed at improving the way the united states works with and through other countries to confront shared security challenges so as the matter i want to discuss today the need to reform the u.s. government's regulations and procedures for

exporting weapons and the so-called dual use equipment and technology. earlier this year the president announced he would speak to further enhance national security through substantial changes to our export control regime. he did so with unanimous support of his entire national security team. this afternoon i will focus on what i believe are the compelling security arguments for the changes recommended by the president. i want to state from the outset how critically important it is to have a vigorous comprehensive export control system that prevents adversaries from getting access to technology or equipment that could be used against us. the problem we face is that the current system which has not been significantly altered since the end of the cold war originated and evolved in a very different era with a very different a ray of concerns in mind. as a result, its rules, organizations and process is not set up to deal effectively with

the situations i could do the most harm at 21st century. a terrorist group of tannin critical components for a weapon of mass destruction or a rogue state seeking advanced ballistic missile parts. most importantly, the current arrangement feels the critical past the the task of preventing harmful exports while facilitating useful ones. the united states is thought to have one of the most stringent export regimes in the world. but stringent is not the same as effective. and number of lapses in the recent years from highly sensitive materials being exported to the vital homeland security capabilities being delayed have underscored the flaw of the current approach. several factors contribute to this kind of scenarios which at worst could lead to the wrong technology falling into the wrong hands. one major culprit is an overly broad definition of what should be subject to export classification and control.

the real-world effect is to make a more difficult focus on those items and technologies that true we need to stay in this country. frederick the great's famous maxim that he who defends everything descends nothing certainly applies to export control. this problem goes back a long way and was evident well before the collapse of the soviet union. in 1982 when i became deputy director for intelligence at dia -- cia i transferred u.s. technology. it soon became apparent that the length of the list of controlled technologies outstripped our finite intelligence monitoring capabilities and resources. it had the effect of undercutting our efforts to control the critical items. we were wasting our time and resources tracking technologies you could buy at radio shack. today the government refuse tens of thousands of license

applications for export to the european union and nato countries. and well over 95% of these cases we say yes to the export. additionally many parts and components of major pieces of equipment such as a combat vehicle or aircraft require their own export licenses. it makes little sense to use the same lengthy process to control the export of every latch, why are and look not for a piece of equipment like the f-16 when we've already approved the export of the entire aircraft. in short, the time for change is long overdue. the application of control on key items and technologies is to have any meaning. we need a system that dispenses with the 95% easy cases and lets us concentrate our resources on the remaining 5%. by doing so, we will be better able to monitor and enforce controls on technology transfers with real security implications while helping speed the

provision of equipment to allies and partners who fight alongside in coalition operations. a second major obstacle we face is a bureaucratic apparatus that has grown apart on the export control and byzantine amalgam of of 40 schools and missions scattered around different parts of the federal government. it is. this provides checks and balances, the idea being security concerns customarily represented by defense would check economic interests represented by commerce and balance out domestic and diplomatic relationship building eckert is presented by the states. in every now become of this diffusion of authority for separate export control lists are maintained by different agencies results in confusion about jurisdiction and approval on the part of companies and a government officials alike. it creates more opportunities for mistakes and enforcement lapses and circumvention strategies such as forum

shopping or exporters with problematic license applications tried different agencies looking for the best result. in one instance and individuals caught intentionally exporting a cultural item without a license but he escaped prosecution by presenting to conflict in determinations from two different government agencies. the item in question was a carbon composite material used in icbm cones. as a result of this dispersed arrangement the u.s. government spends an enormous amount of time and energy on the what are essentially process questions trying to decide which agency has jurisdiction as opposed to the more important issue with a given technology can be safely exported. the central squabbles' can have real-world consequences. a fight between agencies over jurisdiction for the simple delay the program to place new screening equipment in the u.s. and overseas airports.

correspondingly many companies face a frustrating situation where an exporter with a single purchase order to have to seek licenses from two separate agencies and could be approved by one but denied by the other. additionally because it is so difficult to modify or update the kunkel list potential item might never be considered for a lower level of restriction even if it becomes much less sensitive and important over time. the system has the effect of discouraging exporters from approaching the process as intended. multinational companies can move production offshore e routing the defense industrial base of undermining our controlled regimes and the process and not to mention losing american jobs. some of the european satellite manufacturers even market their products as not being subject to u.s. export control thus jogging overseas moly potential customers but some of the best scientists and engineers as well. at the same time, onerous and

complicated restrictions too often fail to prevent weapons and technologies from going places they shouldn't. the only incentivize more creative circumvention strategy on the part of the foreign countries companies as well as countries that do not have our best interest at heart. concurrently we have not updated our system to deal with the u.s. military's transition to off the shelf procurement. more and more of the military's taking advantage of commercially manager items presenting challenges when determining whether or not a given technology is acceptable for export. the electronic components used in many third generation cellular devices there also important components of sophisticated self-defeating radar systems. we need to update our export control system to reflect these realities. finally the current export control regime impedes the effective status of closest

allies tests their patience and good will and hinders their ability to operate with u.s. forces and this at a time we cannot on allies and partners to fight with us in places like afghanistan and potentially elsewhere. not long ago a british c-17 spent hours disabled on the ground in australia not because the needed part wasn't available but because u.s. law required the australians to seek u.s. permission before during the repair. these are very strong allies for the united states. similarly closed have bought u.s. aircraft only to encounter difficulties and delays in getting spare parts. nothing that weakens our bilateral relationships, our credibility and ultimately american security. as one of the reasons why several u.s. secretaries of defense representing multiple administrations of both political parties have voiced frustration over the export

control system. as defense secretary is we have all at one time or another had to sit across the table from defense ministers from important allies or new partners and explain why the u.s. government is unable to follow through expeditiously on its commitment to provide the weapons, equipment and support they've been promised and paid for. it's not an edifying experience. all the while other countries that do not suffer from our incumbrances are taking the opportunity to sell weapons, build relationships and improve their strategic positions and economic standing. some obstacles to having a strategically sound defense tried relationship can be addressed through bilateral agreements with their closest allies and partners. in 2007 the united states signed a trade cooperation treaty with both the united kingdom and australia. the treaties that still await ratification by the samet. through streamlined export control arrangements and

enhanced security technology measures these agreements would substantially improve ability to a quick and support u.s. u.k. and australian forces deploying in combat operations. they contain provisions allowing the establishment of export all the guys to groups of u.s., u.k. and petroleum companies exit for a short list of truly critical equipment and technologies distrusted companies could largely avoid individual export licenses. and i remain hopeful the senate will give advice and consent to both of these treaties prior to the summer recess. the kind common sense changes contained in the u.k. and australia treaties are a step in the right direction at least with these key allies. but international agreements on a substitute for the kind of fundamental systematic reform of the export control that this country urgently needs. the fact is for all of the reasons i described earlier

america's a decades-old bureaucratically system does not serve our 21st century security needs or our economic interests. it is clear our current limitations in this area undermined our ability to work with and approved partners threats and challenges from terrorism to rogue states to rising power. our security interest would be far better served by a more agile transparent predictable and efficient regime. tinkering and around the edges of the current system will not do. for these reasons and more in august of last year the president directed a broad based review of the u.s. export control regime. it's called for reforms that focus control on key technologies and items that pose the greatest national security threat. these include items in technology relating to global terrorism, proliferation and delivery systems of weapons of mass destruction and advanced

conventional weapons. in short, a system where higher walls are pleased about fewer and more critical items. following this directive informed by a recent intelligence council was as the deputy national security considerations i've worked closely with my counterparts of the department of state, commerce, homeland security as well as with the director of national intelligence and the national security adviser to develop a blueprint for such a system. our plan relies on four key reforms. a single export control list, all licensing agency, single enforcement coordination agency and simple information technology system. first, a single export control list will make it clear the u.s. companies which items require licenses for exports which donato. this single list combined with a simple licensing agency would allow us to concentrate on controlling those critical

technologies and items the crown jewels of you will for the basis of obtaining the advantage a specially technologies and items that no foreign company or government can duplicate. all items that have no significant military impact or that use widely available technology could be approved for export quickly. we envision a more dynamic tiered control system where an item or technology would be cascaded from a half year to a lower-level of control as it sensitivity decreases. second, singled licensing entity which would have jurisdiction over both missions and a dual items and technologies will streamline the review process and ensure export decisions are consistent and made on the real capabilities of the technology. the single entity would reduce exporters' current confusion over where and how to submit export to sissons applications as well as which technologies and items are likely to be

approved. the administration is preparing options for the agencies location and i anticipate a presidential decision later this spring. third, the coronation of currently dispersed enforcement resources by one agency will do a great deal to strengthen the enforcement particularly abroad as well as coordination with the intelligence community. those who endanger the troops on compromising the national security will not be able to hide behind a jurisdictional uncertainties or game the system. violators will be subject to federal investigation, prosecution and punishment severe enough to detour lawbreaking. fourth, the single unified information technology infrastructure will reduce the redundancy and compatibility is and waste of taxpayers' money that the current system of multiple databases produces. for example, a single online location database would receive, process and help screen new

license applications and end users. of course the question of which end users are eligible to receive our technology is a critical national security concern and a central component of the reform system as the list of enemies terrorist organizations, both state and others that cannot be allowed access to sensitive items. this would deny them technology or force them to acquire it through a more difficult route. in order to facilitate compliance and tracking we propose to consolidate current list of banned in users into one single frequently updated list that will be easy for those performing transfers to consult. entities can be added at any time there is reasonable cause to believe they are involved in activities contrary to the u.s. national security interests. these fundamental reforms if enacted together will improve america's ability to work with and fight alongside allies and

partners by setting a clear transparent standards that will make it possible to share technology more free especially items needed and used by all of us to counter the common threats. i would like to emphasize the new system will be in full compliance with all of our existing multilateral treaties and obligations. the prospect of more defense trade with the u.s. ally incentivize other nations to strengthen their own export regime. given how quickly and how easily goods and information now can float around the world export controls are far more effective when they involve multiple partners with shared interests and values. as happens with any major reform to an entrenched longstanding system, there will be resistance and criticisms. some people will be concerned having fewer items subject to the most onerous export restrictions will make it easier for hostile states and groups of teen weaponry and technology

that potentially could be used against us. no systems above the current ones is foolproof. but by consolidating most export licensing functions in one agency and creating an enforcement coordination agency we can focus our energy and scrutiny on technology that truly could threaten american security making it far less likely that these critical items will fall into the wrong hands. it is also important to bear in mind that the u.s. government will retain the ability to impose economic sanctions on any foreign country or group to include prohibiting the export of any equipment, material or technology that could have military use. we will turn these principles and proposals and actions in a three phase process that will unfold over the course of the next year. in the first phase the executive branch will begin the transition towards the single list and licensing agency by making significant improvements to the

current system. these efforts will include establishing criteria for the tiered controlled standing up in the integrated enforcement center. the second phase would complete the transition to a single i.t. structure implementing the tiered controlled list and make substantial progress toward a single licensing system. these changes which can be made through executive action represent substantial progress and momentum toward reform, but they are by themselves insufficient to meet the challenge at hand. we need a final third phase, a thorough overhaul of the system along the lines are described today most notably the single the licensing agency in a single law enforcement coordination agency. these fundamental changes will require congressional action. i greatly appreciate the chance to meet earlier with a number of senior members of congress this year to discuss these topics. i tell you the feedback end of

the suggestions they provided at the time and look forward to further dialogue. it's the president's hope that as national security team can continue to work closely with congressional leaders and all of the key committees to turn these proposals into legislation that the president can sign sometime this year. i know better than most that earlier attempts at reform have floundered in the face of resistance. the proposition that a more focused and streamline the system actually helps our national security can go against conventional wisdom. for the reasons i've described today, i believe it is the right approach and it is urgently needed given the harmful effect of continuing with the existing staff was outdated processes, institutions, and assumptions. indeed, america's ability to engage effectively with the rest of the world and keep our most sensitive technology away from those who would do us harm depends critically on our ability to get this right.

i look forward to working with congress and my inner agency colleagues to achieve the kind of systematic reform that will benefit both thought security and prosperity of the american people. thank you. [applause] >> stupak the secretary agreed to take a few questions. you, right down front. >> mr. secretary, first of all, thanks for spending this time with us on this very interesting and critical topic. would you expect the new export control approach that you are advocating would have a affect on our ability to limit iran's raced toward nuclear weapons capability specifically things like the gas component?

>> first of all the likelihood of the iranians being given to get that from us is self of zero. but the -- unless someone games the system i think what's important here one of the things that has happened since the collapse of the soviet union has a real impact on technology transfer to people we don't want to have technologies is that the international consensus that stood behind us for decades in dealing with the soviet union and preventing the transfer of technology is working to prevent the transfer of technology to the soviet union that consensus has completely collapsed and i hope and the hope of my colleagues is that by reforming our system making it more transparent, making it simpler and easier to understand that we can then gain back some of those

partners in terms of working better with us to prevent the export of things like as you just described to the iranians and others. right now it requires u.n. security council resolution or significant government election by an individual government to prevent those transfers, and that is at the current time that is a high-level political decision. we hope that through this type of process we can begin the working level relationships we had in the cocom days where it doesn't take a decision by the prime minister of the country but rather can be done as part of the regular ongoing security cooperation between us. part of this is to begin to get some allies back on this subject because we are pretty much alone right now. >> right here. please wait for the mic.

>> nigel from raytheon. thank you for your insight for words. my question is regarding the disclosure process. it wasn't really mentioned but i am assuming that part of the phased approach that you were going to take, mr. secretary, will that be addressed as a part of your reform? >> yes. right here. >> hello. i'm from the canadian embassy and the chairman of the four men four minn group and we are delighted with your announcement and supporting working with your officials to try to provide our perspective. we are very pleased to hear you say over and over again the importance of working with allies. my question is do you have any idea of concrete steps or process or approach to do this consultation with allies?

>> the first step, they're have been informal consultations of those obviously will continue. i think that the next major step for us is to engage in a major way with congress and to begin working with them in terms of not only informing them better afford phases one and to comply is and what the executive branch is doing but what we need them to do and why we need them to do it. i think before there would be any kind of a formal structure consultation with the allies that the consultation with congress has to come first. >> right over here. >> thank you, mr. secretary. you identified a couple of impediments as to the prior approach to streamline export control. can you speak to your time lines in the interagency process to make sure that this go around

everybody lines abandoned doors is not only the changes you are recommending but how the agency would be created? >> that is one of the things we need to pursue. as i mentioned in my remarks we are developing the options for that i hope the president will be able to make a decision on this spring. the impediments are mostly i would say for us entrenched bureaucracies. this is a process that in this administration is being driven from the top down and let's just say my building has not overflowed in the past with enthusiasts or this kind of change. i would say that is also true of other buildings in town. [laughter] life felt very strongly about this for a long time and so do my colleagues at senior levels

of other agencies such as undersecretary tauscher come psychiatry clinton, secretary locke and so on providing we are going to be driving this process from the top down and out or who is we can get most phases one and two donner over a proposed text number of months and we would love to deal to get legislation before the end of the year. >> [inaudible] -- national association of manufacturers. we look forward to working with you as this moves forward. i wonder if you could touch upon the near medium-term reforms that were discussed by the interagency early on in the review process and whether or not any of those ideas such as the intracompany transfer program licensing and some of the other areas of the address toward a single agency.

spec well, i am happy to say that you have just exhausted my knowledge of the subject. [laughter] frankly i'm not smart enough or well enough informed to talk about the proposals that have been discussed earlier in the review process or in terms of the inner agency on some of the specific things like you're talking about. >> right over here. >> i serve on a committee between commerce that has been looking at the index force. that is one of the biggest. thank you for your leadership in this area that i'm truly hopeful will be reinforced and protect our competitiveness. i am particularly interested since the exports is one of the main ways we differ in enforcement of the we are

considerably more stringent than other nations. what role do you see for that continued enforcement of the index in the new streamlined system? >> well, i would tell you that at the principal level of discussion of this issue deemed exports really has not, except in passing. however, having in my earlier life served on that commerce sponsored experts committee as president of texas a&m i can tell you that the exports in my view our i think the challenge for this country in terms of our ability to attract and keep scientists and engineers from all over the world to come to our universities and to come to the company's and work and frankly in a university setting the notion that you could have a graduate student from a foreign

country working for an american professor and that in a university laboratory setting have that student singled out and denied access to that laboratory is on a day-to-day basis not workable so i don't know quite where the deemed export has come out since i had to leave it prematurely. but as a matter of principle, that is my concern would be in exports and what the consequences are. i get it. we used to have this joke back in the cold war that the soviets would send 40-year-old nuclear physicists to study in u.s. universities and we would send a 21-year-old college seniors to study in their universities. so there is an issue here of its real but we've got to figure out

a better way to deal with it. >> time for one more question right back here. >> secretary gates, from the rate on company. i want to ask two things. one, you're talking about going forward to congress with proposals to change the law to enforce or implement this new system which is commendable. one of the issues the industry struggled with is the legislative branches execution of the export control system taking longer than the rest of the system that you talked about to gain approval from congress. will that be part of the administration proposal reform of the congress' handling of these things? and secondly, will things like the industrial base be considered in the administration's legislation, the effective export controls decisions on that base? >> well, i think from my standpoint that fought defense industrial base is one of the reasons for supporting this effort quite frankly.

chongging to reform the defense department and on this issue reform the executive branch really pretty much takes up most of my day. [laughter] taking on the reform of the congress -- [laughter] my hope is there are some congressional leaders who are supportive of this effort. chairman howard berman the house foreign affairs committee, i talked to senator dodd this morning. so there are a number of people who have expressed interest and they understand the congressional piece of its is something they have to take on as well. but i think -- i think what's handle this in.